2018 (4) TMI 889 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - loss of molasses in storage for the sugar season - Held that - the grounds given by the learned Commissioner, in the impugned order, for rejection of the remission claim are flimsy and nonest - The learned Commissioner had been unable to give any reason for rejecting the acceptance of loss by the State Excise Authority, who are in physical control of the molasses, under the relevant State Act and Rules - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of remission claim of Central Excise duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a remission claim for the sugar season 2011-12 due to loss of molasses in storage. The claim was rejected by the Commissioner, citing failure to inform the Department within 24 hours of loss and lack of individual identification of storage tanks. The Commissioner also questioned the verification of actual loss and the reasons behind it. The appellant argued that the State Excise Authorities had certified and accepted the storage loss, emphasizing the lack of adverse material or contrary findings. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's grounds for rejection as flimsy and baseless. The Commissioner failed to provide a valid reason for disregarding the State Excise Authority's acceptance of the loss. The Tribunal deemed the order as nonspeaking, cryptic, and unsustainable, ultimately allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order. The appellant was granted consequential benefits.

This judgment highlights the importance of valid reasons and proper consideration of evidence in rejecting remission claims under Central Excise Rules. It emphasizes the need for clear justification when disregarding certifications or acceptances by relevant authorities. The Tribunal's decision underscores the requirement for reasoned and well-supported orders to uphold the integrity of administrative decisions in excise duty matters.